Parliamentary Report nr12
Regarding animal husbandry and animal welfare Chapter 1
Background
Norway was one of the first countries in the world which had its own Animal Protection Act as early as 1935. Applicable Norwegian law from 1974, and
preparations for that, were developed at the end of the 1960s. Even though the Act has been changed several times, it is over 30 years since there has been a thorough review of the conditions which the Act regulates, i.e. a review of all animal care in Norway evaluated from an animal welfare perspective.
During the course of 30 years society has changed in most areas, including views about and attitudes towards animals. There have been great structural changes in Norwegian animal husbandry even though these changes have been less expressed here than in many other countries. The number of farms with animals is greatly reduced. The herd size has increased, and so has efficiency. New species such as deer and ostrich, but above all farmed fish, have become a part of Norwegian husbandry.
Increased mechanisation has meant that the time spent on each herd has gone down and as a result the contact between people and animals has reduced. It was common earlier that several people worked on the farm and with the animals, but now it is often one person who has the daily responsibility for care and control. This makes the situation more vulnerable and demands greater awareness in order to prevent animal tragedies. The number of family and sports animals has increased.
Academics’ knowledge concerning animals and animal behaviour has increased significantly. Ethology (knowledge about animal behaviour) has grown to become an acknowledged subject amongst the natural sciences. We have increased knowledge concerning the animals’ natural behaviour and needs and how stress and other
external influences alter their behaviour and ways. This should have consequences for the regulatory framework.
Increased distance to and reduced knowledge about animal husbandry is however symbolic of larger groups of the population. Despite this we are increasingly interested in animal welfare issues. The media focus to an increasing extent upon animal care and animal welfare. Consumers want to be assured that the animals from which the food they eat origin, have had a good life whilst they where alive, during transport to the abattoir, during the stay at the abattoir and that they are slaughtered in an ethically acceptable way. There is an increasing demand for labelling and
traceability. This same development can be seen in the majority of industrialised countries. This has led to an increased difference in the opinion about animals and requirements concerning care of animals between developing countries and industrialised countries.
The interest for animals and animal welfare has led to an increased number of
approaches to the managing authorities and to the politically responsible authorities.
This has led to animal welfare being placed on the political agenda to a much greater extent than before. The level of detail in such approaches is extensive.
With this in mind The Ministry of Agriculture wished to carry out a broad review and evaluation of all animal care in this country from an ethical and welfare perspective.
The work has been carried out in a transparent manner with significant engagement from individuals and groups in society. The report covers all species which are covered by today’s Animal Protection Act. Honey bees, molluscs and hobby invertebrates are not covered.
The Government wishes with this report to present the result of the review, including proposals for long term goals and actions, to the Parliament (Storting) for further discussion.
Chapter 2
Excerpts and summary
2.1 The work with the report
Chapter 3 gives an introduction to the work with the parliamentary report and the method’s which have been used. The work was organised as a project and
The Norwegian Animal Health Authority was a close cooperating party (stakeholder).
There have been held five hearings in the form of meetings about central themes and the project group has received 199 written comments from institutions, organisations and individuals.
2.2 Fundamental knowledge and development parameters
Chapter 4 concerns society’s attitudes towards animals through various eras and trend's which influence our cultural circle today. The view of animal welfare from the Lapp tradition is specifically focused upon. It gives a status for the biological
knowledge concerning animals and a definition of the term animal welfare.
Chapter 5 covers the main points in the development of Norwegian animal husbandry over the last 50 years, with the main focus on the development parameters which have an impact on animal welfare. The chapter also describes various models for the future of Norwegian animal husbandry.
2.3 The situation today
Chapter 6 is a description of the status for Norwegian animal husbandry today, with a particular focus on the conditions which have an influence upon animal welfare. With the exception of farmed fish, laying hens, slaughter poultry and to some extent slaughter pigs, Norwegian production animals are kept in small units where it is possible to give the individual animal individual attention.
Chapter 7 describes Norwegian animal welfare legislation and enforcement of this legislation. The Animal Protection Law’s section on aim and scope can be compared to the equivalent in the other Nordic countries and a summary of Norwegian legal practice in the event of a breach of animal protection regulations is given.
Chapter 8 covers some international forums which deal with questions regarding
animal welfare. In addition it covers the international conventions which Norway has ratified and which have a direct or indirect influence on animal welfare. Norway has ratified and implemented all of the Council of Europe conventions which concern animal welfare. The EEA Treaty also covers animal welfare and Norway complies with the treaty in this area through the current legislation.
2.4 Goals, actions and strategies
Chapter 9 describes The Norwegian Ministry of Agriculture’s goals and activities for the coming years to improve animal welfare. The Government has proposed an ethical platform which shall be guiding for attitudes to and care of animals in our society.
This ethical platform provides for the following:
• Animals have a value of their own. Handling of animals shall be carried out with care and respect for the species. This involves having extensive
consideration for animals’ natural needs and to actively prevent sickness, injuries and pain.
• Persons who have animals in their care shall have knowledge about the animal’s behavioural needs and its needs concerning nutrition, social and physical environments. Persons who have animals in their care have
responsibility for the animals’ basic needs being taken care of, and that they receive correct treatment in the event of sickness and injury.
• Animals shall be kept in environments which give them a good quality of life.
• Healthy functioning animals – physical and mental – shall be a condition for all types of breeding.
• Before new technological solutions are taken into use it must be proven probable that these solutions do not reduce animal welfare. New operational methods must have as little negative impact on animals as possible.
The Norwegian Ministry of Agriculture has developed the following main goal for Norwegian animal care, based on the ethical platform:
Healthy animals in good environments
In the work with animal welfare the following long term goals shall be a driving aspect for all types of animal care:
• The shaping of the environment shall respect the animals’ behavioural needs.
• Animals shall not be subjected to unnecessary pressures.
In order to reach this main goal the Government has developed concrete long term goals for each species and in various central areas which concern various species. In addition the Government has defined five strategies which focus upon:
• Competence among animal owners
• Knowledge development and distribution
• Appropriate legislation and competent enforcement
• Freedom of information and consumer communication
• International cooperation
The work with the prevention of animal tragedies which are caused by a lack of care will receive increased attention. The cause of such tragedies is often a combination of events which are difficult to prevent through individual actions. However, the
strategies which have been developed will, in view of the Government, strengthen the
work to hinder such animal tragedies. This involves amongst others actions to
strengthen owners’ competence, professionalize the animal welfare management and introduce a requirement to report for all who become aware of situations where the care of animals has been neglected.
In order to ensure competent owners, the Government has proposed to include a requirement for documented competence for industry based owners responsible for animal husbandry as part of the Animal Protection Act. The implementation of such training will be the responsibility of industry organisations which shall provide a professional arrangement which is approved by the authorities. The effect of this voluntary training will be evaluated after a five year period and the Ministry will consider public actions directed at animal owners who have not completed the training.
The Government will encourage representatives for owners of family and hobby animals to tailor information and competence building towards members in this area.
In order to ensure necessary knowledge development and sharing the Government will consider:
• Strengthening research contribution from the existing competence
environment within animal health and animal welfare. Norway has a particular responsibility with regard to welfare of farmed fish.
• Establishing a system for advice (academic and other) to the administration within animal care and animal welfare.
• Continue supporting the Council for animal ethics as an independent group with responsibility to advice the administration in ethical questions in addition to being a catalyst for an ongoing public debate regarding ethical standards for animal care and the handling of animals.
In order to ensure an appropriate regulatory framework and competent enforcement the Government aims to:
• Carry out a thorough review of the Animal Protection Act which amongst other things shall ensure that the Act defines the main standards and
framework for animal welfare whilst the more operational criteria will appear in secondary legislation. The review will also investigate authorisations for a more effective prevention of animal tragedies, amongst others a requirement for competence of animal owners, a professionalizing of animal welfare management and a requirement to report for all who become aware of
situations where the care of animals is neglected. It is the Government’s view that the requirement to report should also apply to professional groups who are covered by a legal confidentiality duty.
• Strengthening and making more effective enforcement of animal welfare by management authority being given to the Ministry of Agriculture who then delegates it to the Food Safety Authority. Animal protection will be an important task for the new Food Safety Authority. Animal protection committees will continue as an advisory organ for the executive authority.
In order to ensure an appropriate freedom of information and consumer communication the Government aims to:
• Ensure that the managing authority provides a yearly status report regarding animal welfare and discuss this with industry and consumer organisations in appropriate meeting places.
• An introduction to ethics and animal welfare in schools (children aged 6 to16 years)
• To provide for product marking which include animal welfare issues
Important frameworks for animal welfare will increasingly be decided at international level through international negotiations. The Government therefore will consider an active international participation in order to strengthen animal welfare through amongst other ways:
• Active participation in the Council of Europe’s and the International Animal Health Organisation’s (OIE) work with animal welfare.
• Ensure better opportunities for consultations for Norway within the EU institutions with responsibility for animal welfare.
• Evaluate position in the WTO negotiations concerning animal welfare.
The Government has developed the following important goals and actions in cases where several species are involved:
• A review of different breeding programs with respect to the animals’ health and welfare.
• Requirement for the installation of fire alarm equipment in large barns within 5 years.
• A review of the regulations which regulate the transport of animals, in
particular evaluate preparation of transport, journey time and opportunities to stop.
• A review of the regulations which regulate the handling of animals for
slaughter with a view to strengthening the consideration for animal welfare in addition to ensuring a national emergency slaughter provision.
The Government has developed the following important goals and actions for the particular species involved:
Aquatic farmed animals
• Focus on research to develop good welfare indicators for farmed fish and better pain relief methods at the point of slaughter.
• Strengthen consideration to animal welfare by a review of exiting standards for the regulation of production.
• Reduced occurrences of deformities and other production related suffering.
• Reduced mortality of smolt in connection with transport and release into the sea.
Cattle
• Free range for all cattle within 20 years and ban against building of barns with pens from 2004.
• All cattle shall have access to a place to lie with a soft base from 2005.
• All cattle with the exception of un-castrated ox over 6 months shall within 10 years be outdoors in the summer period.
Pigs
• Free range for all pigs, including sows in connection with farrowing, within 10 years.
• Enhanced internal environment and a food ration which gives a satisfied feeling.
Sheep and goats
• Reduced loss to wild predators through use of political resources which can increase to a large extent the physical separation between wild animals and grazing animals.
• Regulation of the care of sheep and goats including a regulated description of responsibility for looking after grazing animals.
• Reduced occurrence of chronic infection diseases in goats.
Tame reindeer
• Framework conditions for reindeer shall ensure agreement between the number of animals and grazing resources and adequate areas for traditional herding.
• Reduced loss during grazing crises and reduced loss to wild predators shall be ensured through a review of existing tools and increased competence in crisis feeding.
• Regard to animal welfare shall be strengthened in connection with transportation and periods in working fences.
Poultry
• A principle goal of free range for laying hens but implementation is reliant of more appropriate systems.
• Through work at an international level, encourage breeding goals in international breeding which improve the welfare of the animals.
• A review of the regulations for slaughter chickens and turkeys with a view to reducing the density of the populations compared to the levels today.
Fur production animals
• Strengthen welfare of mink and fox through a review of existing legislation with a focus on systems which better cover behavioural needs. New
requirements shall be implemented within 10 years.
• Breeding and care for foxes must encourage trusting animals and avoid defects.
• Reduced use of force and particularly stressful situations for foxes, ban against live animal exhibitions.
• Find alternative methods of killing minks.
Dogs and cats
• The organisations are requested to develop guidelines for care.
• Regulation of special dog care such as pulling dogs or other large scale dog care. Strengthened protection of competition dogs.
• Consider regulation of breeding of dogs.
• Ensure a better control of the cat population through the introduction of an official requirement for ID marking. The control of the wild cat population must be defendable from a welfare perspective. Sterilisation and the release of cats without owners depend on the organisations and individuals taking responsibility for the feeding of these animals.
Other family/hobby animals, circus animals and other exhibition of animals
• A list of exotic animals which are permitted as family (domestic) animals will be developed.
• In connection with any sale, animal retailers must provide information on the particular animals’ needs.
• A list of animals which are permitted to be displayed at circuses will be developed.
• Keeping of animals in zoos and other displaying of animals will be regulated.
Animals used in research and education
• The establishment of a national platform for alternatives to animal testing.
Wild animals
• A better coordination of the Animal welfare act and the Wild animal act.
• A requirement in the Animal welfare act for approving of hunting methods and equipment.
• Strict limitations of the use of catch and release as a method of fishing.
• A total ban on the use of barbed wire as a fencing material in animal enclosures.
2.5 Economic consequences
Chapter 10 describes important economic consequences of the various proposals.
Chapter 4
Animals and Society
This chapter covers, in 4.1., attitudes to animals and ethical evaluations which have been dominant through various eras and in various cultures, including the Lapp culture, and trends which influence society. Chapter 4.2 covers parts of the biological knowledge concerning animals which are relevant for the status of animals and in 4.3 the term animal welfare is covered.
Summary
• Ethical views in relation to the acceptable treatment of animals have changed over time and vary from culture to culture.
• The population are generally concerned that animals shall be treated well.
Good animal welfare can be considered as a collective benefit for society.
• Science has recently presented a lot of knowledge about animals’ sense awareness and their behavioural needs.
• There are several definitions of the term animal welfare. In this report we have chosen to use the wider definition where the Brambell Commission’s five freedoms for domestic animals (see 4.3.1) form the foundation. The starting point is the individual species’ special biological needs. The animal’s ability to feel and its ability to master the environment are prioritised to the extent that such information is available.
• Important information to be able to assess the animals’ welfare includes health, physiological parameters and behaviour.
4.1 Attitudes to animals
4.1.1 Use of animals, responsibility for animals and the basis for empathy
Animals are an important part of our society and our culture and have been from time immemorial. Humans keep animals in order to satisfy basic needs for food and clothes but animals and products from animals are used for many other purposes. In today’s society we care for animals not least for companionship, entertainment and sport. The areas of use are being extended constantly. For example dogs are trained in new help functions such as finding leaks in pipes to warning their owner about a coming epileptic fit. Gene technology has made it possible for us to tailor and use animals as producers of medication and organs for transplant medicine. In some of these cases the animals represent pure objects for our purposes whilst in other situations the relationship is first and foremost that the animal is a living being and friend that gives satisfaction and joy.
Regardless of the area of use, animals are left to receiving the care and caring that they get. People have taken over control of the whole of an animal’s lifetime, and many will state that this at the same time represents a special responsibility for ensuring domestic animals’ welfare.
The majority of people can engage themselves and understand other people’s situation. The ability to understand, or empathy, is seen as an important human quality. This applies also in relation to animals. Not all animals have the same ability to stimulate people’s sympathy and concern. The animal species’ status in society is significant amongst other factors. Species which are considered as intelligent by virtue of human bench mark, e.g. dolphins and apes have generally higher status than
‘stupid’ animals. The size of the animal also seems to have a certain significance. Pain and suffering for a large animal such as a horse normally receives more attention that a similar condition in a small mammal. Animals with infantile characteristics such as large eyes and butte shapes which have an easily understandable body language and suffer, e.g. a whining puppy, awaken our caring side easily. A silent fish without expression is more difficult to identify oneself with and does not stimulate such feelings so easily. The more we identify our own feeling in animals the more we are able to care. Different species have different body language and forms of expression and our ability to understand can vary. Knowledge regarding specie specific
behaviour makes it more possible for us to read the animal’s signals and easier for us to understand the animals situation. How well one knows the animal as an individual also has a significance.
In an animal farm where there is a large operation, the foundation for empathy is often reduced: Hundreds, perhaps many thousands of animals together in a barn or fish farm net leads to the individual animal being invisible. The animals live a consistently shorter life than previously was the case and the keeper’s time use per animal has been significantly reduced. All this reduces the opportunity for contact and
recognition between the keeper and the individual animal. It is perhaps easy to react with disgust and not thoughtful consideration when one sees cage after cage with featherless frightened hens or congestions of filthy slaughter pigs. Animals which are kept in a non-stimulating environment do not develop or show their characteristics, something which contributes to people easily losing respect for the animals and consider them as machines.
Mahatma Ghandi once said that “The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated”. Society’s treatment of the weakest, the animals, reflects the society’s humanity. A number of investigations have confirmed that concern for animals also leads to greater concern for other people. However, animal welfare is important first and foremost for the animals themselves. Perhaps the need for protection is greatest for those species which do not automatically stimulate our concern but are considered neutral or repulsive.
4.1.2 Animal Ethics – a short history
Moral is the individual’s awareness of right and wrong which is the basis of ones own actions and the judgement of others’ actions. Ethics are the theoretical foundation for the moral, the philosophical thoughts about the foundation for moral stand points.
Within certain areas the value foundation is generally valid and independent of era and national borders. For example the majority of cultures and religions have
common standards concerning lies, theft and murder. With regard to other conditions one sees that the common understanding not only varies between cultures but also changes over time within a cultural circle. This is the case with regards to amongst others slavery, women’s rights and homosexuality. Attitudes to animals and animals’
status also show large variations between different cultures and eras.
Religion and animals
Religions will as a rule have a definite fundamental view regarding the relationship between people and animals. The big religions coming from the Middle East i.e.
Judaism, Christianity and Islam are anthropocentric to the extent that they look upon people as special and outstanding in the Creation. This anthropocentric fundamental attitude does not, however, exclude a well developed sense of human treatment of animals e.g. from the perspective that people are the managers of the Creation. At the same time there are many examples of brutal and disrespectful treatment of animals in societies which are based on these anthropocentric religions.
It is difficult to find any consistent attitudes to animals in the East’s big religions and philosophies. Buddhism does not have a clear distinction between humans and animals as for instance Christianity does, but is instead concerned with the
unbreakable relationship between all things and objects in the cosmos. The majority of monks are therefore vegetarian. On the other hand, being a human is seen as an advantage to reach the final goal, nirvana, and it is considered as misfortune to be reborn as an animal. Hinduism gives cows a very special status as holy animals and
some Hindus are vegetarian. Confucianism, which is an important foundation for ethic and moral in East Asia, is on the other hand very anthropocentric and has at the same time no conception of a creator. Therefore there is no conception of man being part of the Creation and responsible for that which has been created.
In some nature religions animals are regarded as brothers and sisters of mankind and that one lives in a kind of “harmony” with nature. This does not mean that man cannot take the life of an animal, but there are often rituals connected to hunting where one shows respect for the animal.
Religion contributes to forming a fundamental basis for a society, but there is no easy relationship between the religions’ philosophies or basic attitude and society’s moral and ethics in the treatment of animals. Measured by our standards, many will react strongly against the mistreatment of animals in the East, but there are also distinctive differences between the attitudes within Europe. Cultures which are dominated by a religion may have a practice which appears very different to the ideals one can derive from the religion’s fundamental idea, because other factors than religion determine how a society treats animals. Even though the starting points are very different, the reality is that animals have been used and continue to be used and developed for the benefit of mankind to a varying degree in all cultures.
Animals’ moral status
The question concerning the extent to which man, with respect to animals, shall proportion weight, and in which case which weighting is an old question. The problem is discussed amongst other places in The Old Testament, by the Greeks in antiquity, and has been a subject of debate in society through the ages.
In philosophy the term moral status is often used to describe who is covered by the moral rules. Moral status describes who will be considered in a moral evaluation. To be a moral actor is something else. The one who is a moral actor is expected to follow the moral rules and act morally. The majority will claim that mankind always has a moral status regardless of whether the person is capable of acting on a moral basis. It may for example be a baby or an adult suffering from dementia. Nor are animals moral actors. But the question is; do animals have a moral status?
Aristotle (384-322 BC) said that to have reason must be a perquisite for having moral status. Since animals cannot be regarded as beings of reason, it follows that they cannot have moral status. Far from all agreed with Aristotle, but his views played an important role in Antiquity and where referred to by Christian academics such as Augustine (354-430) and Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274). Their view was also that animals did not have a moral status. Other Christian academics such as Francis of Assisi (1182-1226) disagreed and personally showed great care for animals and referred to animals as brothers and sisters. More recently it could be appropriate to refer to Albert Schweitzer who built his ethics upon respect for animals.
The view of animals has varied over time even within the Christian cultural circle. In the middle ages there are examples of animals being regarded as morally responsible for their actions, brought before the counts and sentenced. In connection with witch hunting there was at the same time a large scale hunting of cats, particularly black cats, which were considered to be devils in disguise.
In the 17th century a very mechanical view of nature developed. The philosopher Descartes (1596-1650) strongly distinguished between people and animals, and he compared animals to machines. If the machine model was applied unconditionally, it could lead to the view that if a dog is yelps when it is kicked it is not because it is in pain but more a problem with “creaking machinery”. Therefore, to torture an animal was not seen as more immoral than kicking a door open.
The leading philosopher Kant (1724-1804) also considered reason a foundation for his opinion that humans are the only creations with moral status. However, Kant insisted that animals should be treated well because brutality against animals could lead to brutality against people.
Feelings were first seen as morally relevant in the 18th century by philosophers like Hume (1711-1776) and Bentham (1748-1832). Bentham, who was a utilitarian, 1 claimed that because not only people but also animals can undoubtedly feel pain, people have a moral responsibility for animals. The discussion regarding animals’
moral status has not only been centred on their ability to think, but also their ability to talk. Since it is difficult to avoid the fact that at least some animals have some form of language, the question of syntax, i.e. sentence construction, has been brought into the discussion concerning animals’ status. Bentham rejects these arguments by stating that the decisive element is not whether animals can think or speak, but whether they can suffer.
Other philosophers and theologists have gone in other directions than Bentham and preferred an extended definition of moral where people not only have moral duties to living animals, but the whole of nature. Arne Næss’ deep ecological movement is an example of this. In the Nordic countries elements of such a communicative view concerning nature are widespread. Nature has a value of its own and not just with respect to its usefulness for mankind. An understanding of mankind as a part of an ecological totality is mirrored also in the expression sustainable development. The expression means that resources and the foundation for life shall be protected for the future. Not only people and animals living today shall be taken into consideration, but we have an independent ethical responsibility for the coming generations.
Modern animal ethics
In our part of the world the treatment of animals continues to be a current and contested issue. The use of animals in research and industrialised farming has generated reactions.
Today’s extreme animal activists build on utilitarian view, where people’s and animals’ experience of pain and desire shall be regarded as equal in an ethical calculation, or a rights philosophy which protects the animals integrity and independent right to life. The leading supporters of this view are at present Peter Singer and Tom Regan. Both of these philosophers have the view that no morally relevant qualities (such as feeling of pain, ability for rational thinking, free will, self awareness or language) exist in all humans but in no animals. At least animals who
1 Utilitarian (use ethic): Philosophic direction where the correct action is the one which leads to most happiness/desire and least suffering and pain for as many as possible.
can experience desire and pain must be included in the moral “gang” and be given a moral status. Since animals in a similar way to small children do not have the ability to think and act morally, they are not moral actors but moral objects which have the right to be treated morally. Their interests must be protected by others, but must be handled as an equal party in an ethical calculation. To use species as a criterion to limit the moral “gang” in relation to animals, which has been done in order to include people without language, ability for abstract thinking etc. is reprehensible in the view of these philosophers. They are of the view that to treat animals differently on the basis of species is in principle the equivalent to race and sex discrimination. It is their view however that mankind’s interests are largely more complex and extensive than animals’. Therefore, in practical calculations, a human life will be worth more than an animal’s life.
Many of these points of view have sympathy outside of the more extreme circles.
Two out of three young English youths reject all forms of hunting, fur farms, animal experiments including medical research and industrial farming (Daily Telegraph 1994, interview of 1019 young people in the age group 14-19 years). In a Norwegian survey (LOS centre 1998), approximately the same number from a representative sample of 1000 persons agreed (41%) as disagreed (35%) with the statement “from a moral perspective animals should have the same rights as people”. In an opinion poll in the USA in 1995 38% strongly agreed and 28% agreed with the statement “an animal’s right not to suffer is as important as a person’s right not to suffer” whereas 12% disagreed strongly. The responses should be viewed as an intuitive gut feeling rather than an ethical standpoint because the majority (71%) at the same time stated that they had a significant consumption of meat and fish. Consideration for animals is nevertheless one of the most important reasons for an increasing proportion of the population in the western world stopping eating meat and possibly rejecting the use of animal products.
A widespread moral view in Norway today takes elements from utilitarism and rights philosophy. It is not in principle wrong to keep and slaughter for important human needs. The most important aspect is how the animals are cared for and treated whilst living and that slaughter takes place with as little pain as possible. Sufficiently great human need can therefore be a defence for animal rights to be set aside, but even human need cannot defend an unlimited use of animals. The problem can be summed up in the following way: How great a disadvantage or level of pain is it justifiable to subject an animal to, in relation to the profit for humans? In light of the wording of the Animal Protection Act’s section regarding the purpose of the Act; One shall treat animals well and take into consideration the animal’s instincts and natural needs in order that there is no danger of it suffering unnecessarily, the question is: What is unnecessary pain? Because it is not illegal to subject an animal to pain, it is unnecessary pain which is banned. In some areas the distinction between what is considered to be necessary and unnecessary pain is drawn in the legislation. In Norway for example it is not permitted to use a whip as encouragement device in trotting races or other horse races. It is permitted to subject animals to pain for important medical research purposes according to the legislation regarding animal testing. It is also permitted to keep animals in small cages regardless of whether the purpose is company (house birds), food production (laying hens) or other industrial activity. Eidsivating lagmansrett (a regional appeal court) concluded in a case regarding the legality of fur farms (1998) that fur farming as it is conducted today is
not contrary to the Animal Protection Act despite the fact that the confinement can be characterised as unethical. The judgement raises a fundamental question concerning the value of having an Animal Protection Act which allows the unethical containment of animals.
4.1.3 The view of animals and animal welfare in Lapp culture tradition As a part of the work with this parliamentary report, the Ministry of Agriculture commissioned a report from the Lapp Postgraduate College regarding animal protection in the Lapp culture. The report exists as an unpublished appendix to this report whilst a summary is given below:
In Lapp culture ideas of people’s and animals’ place in the Creation exist from ancient times; regarding how man and other creations are both connected and disconnected from each other, the question regarding what man is and the arrangement man and other creations are a part of. According to the traditional conception nature, as something man is dependant upon, has both a spiritual and a material aspect. Within the traditional hunting culture all wild and living animals are holy. Certain ceremonies and strict rules where connected to the hunt. The purpose of these rules was partly to protect the population and partly that each individual animal should be respected. The idea that nature has strict rules also regarding the treatment of individual animals is very prominent.
Concrete mechanisms of punishment could strike one who did not have enough regard for the animals’ welfare. Man could not just follow his own will.
Traditionally the human’s relationship with animals and the norms for treatment of animals have been communicated through tales or myths, joik lyrics (joik is a chant on a monotone, used by Lapps to tell the story of a person or a past event) and rituals, in addition to the individual’s experience through his own and other people’s contact with animals in everyday
circumstances. This way of thinking has been continued and reformulated in relation to both reindeer and the proper domestic animals. These norms are not written down in the form of laws and regulations, but they can be interpreted from traditional materials and from the languages terms. Authors such as Johan Turi and Anta Pirak have touched on the theme more explicitly in their observations of everyday Lapp life.
In Lapp thinking regarding animal welfare there is an ethical distinction between totally free animals, free animals and domestic animals dependent on the level of the individual animal’s independence and its opportunity to look after itself. A domestic animal’s life situation is totally dependent upon people and it is subject to people’s good will and care whilst in addition being denied the possibility of looking after itself. In the myths the relationship with
domestic animals is explained as such; the animals have entered into binding contracts with man regarding their status.
As a starting point all creations have equal rights and have a claim for its share of things which are either offered or available and necessary for its existence.
The phrase totally free animals includes various categories of creatures such as
prey animals (which people hunt and have a use for) predators (which people hunt for and in some situations may have a use for), and insects (which people also may have a use for in some situations). These animals constitute a
purpose alone and cannot be considered only as means for human purposes.
These animals are not in the custody of people and therefore there are no tales concerning the agreement on contracts between people and totally free
animals.
Even though free animals are not in the custody of people and vice versa, neither party can do whatever they please towards each other. Standards for behaviour exist between people and animals. In the reindeer industry even the wild animals which prey upon reindeer (boazu) are not considered first and foremost as “pests”. In their just place in the order of creation they have a right to their share which I necessary for their continued existence, regardless of the benefit for people.
Regarding freedom for animals, there is a particular term luohtu as the first part of compound words meaning partly “the wilderness, wild” and partly
“(domestic animals’) (summer) freedom in nature, summer pastures
(abstract)”. This term is obviously old and illustrates very well the relationship between the status of domestic animals in a strict sense (animals which are kept in buildings) and other animals out in nature.
The care for the animals has been and is fundamental - for reindeer, cows, horses, sheep, goats, cats and other domestic animals. The animals have at all times the highest priority, both because of their usefulness, and also for ethical reasons.
Everywhere where people have domestic animals the daily life and daily rhythm of the humans are based upon animals’ needs. In the daily work, animals and people were more equal as they both had to work under the same conditions. Domestic animals literally lived under the same conditions in the same turf hut, often with a common entrance but in two different rooms. This created a common foundation of experience which brought people much closer to animals than one can imagine today.
In the care of domestic animals there are many proofs of rules and examples for example concerning how they should be treated and protected. Man also has a duty to reindeer and even to wild animals in certain situations to protect them from attack and injury.
The reindeer finds itself being in a position between a totally free animal and a domestic animal. Ideally the pastoral nomad should just follow the reindeer and protect it from external threats, and distract the reindeer as little as possible both for the benefit of himself and the reindeer. To herd (guopohut) reindeer means to encourage a reindeer to graze (guohtut). The work of the people consists of controlling the herds by maintaining a level of tameness within the animals and by predicting the animals’ movements based on knowledge of their natural behaviour connected to seasons, pastures and terrain. Reindeer is an animal which naturally belongs to the landscape where
reindeer herding (Iuohtu) takes place and as far as the reindeer herders are concerned the reindeer is free, mobile and independent.
If the grazing land becomes inaccessible due to ice formation, the herders allow the reindeer to spread out more uncontrolled as the reindeer is after all considered the best at finding pastures itself. It is best in all emergency
situations that the reindeer is left to nature (Iuohtu). This attitude that reindeer has its foundation in Iuohtu is fundamental to understand the attitude towards emergency feeding and how that is practised. There is also ethical resistance against introducing reindeer to feeding and thus making it dependent upon people. This is considered as an intervention which can render the reindeer helpless in relation to its natural seasonal movements and adjustment to Iuohtu. Emergency feeding/additional feeding in short periods under difficult climatic conditions has been accepted on the condition that this does not lead to the reindeer becoming dependant upon permanent feeding or that it
becomes unable to manage in its natural environment (Iuohtu) as a free, mobile and independent creature.
It is only in situations where the reindeer is totally within the custody of people and denied its freedom that the reindeer in an ethical sense appears as a domestic animal and should be treated as such. Typical situations are
situations where single reindeer are used to pull carts or pack reindeer, situations where individual reindeer are captured and exposed to human treatment for example marking, milking, castration, slaughter, and in
situations where the reindeer is captured in a working pen. Such situations are covered by informal ethical guidelines.
The most important change in the industry which has implications on animal ethics is the motorisation of reindeer operations and the need for transportation of live animals. New methods of transport have meant that the animals are handled more often than before. Together with other changes in reindeer operations new situations have arisen where the reindeer is held in captivity, whereas situations where reindeer have traditionally been held in captivity have more or less ceased. There may be more injuries and suffering than previously, but we have no documentation which can demonstrate this. Based on these changes alone, one cannot conclude that there are changes in the ethical ideas and standards in the treatment of reindeer whilst in captivity.
There is no documentation which can be presented to demonstrate that the attitude and terms have changed.
The treatment of the actual domestic animals generally has probably not diverted much from what has been normal within cattle and animal keeping otherwise in Norway, even though the horizon such considerations have been based on can be different. There is probably no great need to consider the welfare of such animals in a particular way in a Lapp context.
The need is clearly greatest concerning the treatment of reindeer. One has fairly certainly a feeling in the reindeer operation environment that the
development in different ways happens in conflict with the old standards. And new well-meant regulation can quickly appear as one-sided instructions from
outside without either a practical basis or value basis in the reindeer industry itself. Traditional reindeer operation knowledge should be more respected by the authorities. Dialogue between tradition and renewal and respect for regulations and systems are best promoted through mutuality.
Even though animal husbandry ways has changed in its forms, it is still the traditional standards within Lapp culture which still represents the foundation for the judgement of defendable or indefensible animal treatment. The
framework for ethical animal handling can be found in the history of Lap culture, but there may be a need for more detailed and explicit regulations in some areas. If one shows respect for tradition and culture it should not be impossible to find good solutions.”
4.1.4 General attitudes – development signs and current trends Changing values
In a modern society one cannot expect agreement concerning all questions of values.
The population has different cultural backgrounds and many experience new things from travel or the media. Value evaluations in an area such as animal welfare is not isolated but should be weighed up against other values and consideration, especially when they are used practically. It is therefore essential that the discussion concerning ethical questions takes place continually, and that there is a general acceptance of a certain foundation which society can build upon. 30 years have passed since the principles in the existing Animal Welfare Act were discussed in the Parliament (Storting). Procedures which have previously been found unproblematic may in time be viewed in a different light. The general wealth development has lead to interest in other values than material values. New knowledge influences and should influence moral attitudes. Scientific based knowledge concerning animals’ senses and how animals react in various situations should for example make it possible to set ethical limits for the animal husbandry. Ethical weighting should generally be based on a factual foundation which is as extensive as possible. Otherwise we can end up giving more weight to conditions which in practice mean more to people’s feelings than to the welfare of animals. On the other hand, the need to have to prove everything with scientific research may cause us to lose the ability to use empathy and common sense.
If we are too occupied with details, valuable information concerning the total picture may be lost. It cannot be taken for granted that everything that can be measured means something, and it is not certain that what means most can be measured. A
“precautionary” attitude is therefore significant also in this area. Even though there might exist a small doubt whether fish feel pain in a similar way to mammals, we should treat them as if they do.
Prominent trends in consumer attitudes
Production for a competitive market and the requirement for profit has led to industrial agriculture which many people react in a negative way to when they are made aware of the conditions. This does not apply only to conditions which are perceived as gruesome with respect to animal care and the treatment of domestic animals, but also aspects about food which may have a negative effect on personal health, such as residues of drugs and medicines, resistant micro organisms as well as consideration for the environment. This includes a general scepticism towards the modification of genes and “messing around with nature”.
Consumer surveys are the nearest one comes to the general attitudes in the public opinion with regard to today’s animal husbandry and food production. Consumers and their organisations have become an independent force and weight is given to their views. The public opinion has in several instances managed to generate stricter regulation of production animals, amongst others concerning the transport of animals in the EU and compulsory grazing for cows in Sweden. In Norway consumers as a group have been less explicit, but media coverage of Norwegian conditions has nevertheless contributed to awareness being sharpened over the last few years. The Norwegian public opinion is still to a large extent convinced that conditions in Norwegian animal husbandry are better than abroad. Norwegians also have a
relatively greater confidence in the authorities and the directorates than that which is stated by consumers elsewhere in Europe. According to a survey carried out by Norsk Gallup Institutt in 2001 (Nature and Environment Barometer) 80% of those asked are very confident or quite confident that cattle in Norway are kept in an animal friendly way, and 85% when asked about sheep and goats. The equivalent figures for pigs are 68%, for hens 39%, and for fur animals 29%. A survey from Scan-Fact in 1999 regarding the significance of animal welfare in relation to six political issues which where then current (tax policy, environmental protection, culture, alcohol policy, the position of the church, and shop opening hours) showed that 57% thought that animal welfare was very significant, whereas 9% thought that animal welfare had no
significance. Only tax policy and environmental protection were rated as more important than animal protection.
Opinion carried out a survey commissioned by the Animal Protection Alliance in 2002 concerning attitudes to the use of animals. A large majority, 88%, of those questioned, said they where positive to animals being used for food production, whilst 10% were negative. With regard to testing of cosmetics on animals 81% were
negative and 11% positive, whereas with regard to the use of animals for medical research 70% were positive and 19% were negative. With regard to fur production 36% were positive and 56% negative. In a previous survey carried out Opinion (2000) 56% of those asked considered it wrong to keep fur animals in cages whilst 21%
considered it to be right.
Women and the young are generally most concerned that animal husbandry is carried out in a defendable manner, but they are also most sceptical to that being the case at all. The same applies to people resident in urban areas.
Even though a large majority of the population are positive to the use of animals for food production, almost 40% of consumers, proportionately most women, say that they are sceptical about their own consumption of meat (SIFO 2000). 50% of these respondents state that they are actually doing something about it even though the statistics show that meat consumption as a whole is slightly increasing or stable.
Changes in the choice of meat products could be an alternative to reduction. In addition there is a tendency for the difference in meat consumption increasing between various groups. The cause of the scepticism towards meat is split between considering ones own health and consideration for animal welfare. Despite the scepticism towards meat and meat production being widespread in the Norwegian population, vegetarians count only 1-2%. Understanding for the animals’ life and rights clearly does not dissuade people from eating meat and 80% of the population
think that people have the right to take life to obtain food. Consumer behaviour may despite this change. A reduction and change in meat consumption has been clear in some other European countries in the last 10-15 years.
The majority of consumers state in interview that they are prepared to pay more for food in order that farm animals have a better life. This willingness does however reduce with increasing price differences. Experience shows however that in practise many chose the cheapest product. Norwegian consumers’ firmly established
confidence in Norwegian agriculture and the food which is presented for sale may be one of the reasons that animal welfare is not in focus when a choice is being made in front of the chilled counter. Another reason is that the labelling systems do not give information concerning production conditions. In Denmark, for example, the sale of eggs from caged hens was reduced by 40% during the 5 years after it was required to mark the cartons with production method. Organic products are by the majority of consumers associated with environmental considerations and to a lesser extent animal welfare, even though there are stricter requirements regarding animal care than in conventional production. There is amongst other things a requirement for outdoor airing pens for hens and daily exercise for milking cows in pens. In several countries animal friendly products have their own marking system; for example in England
“Freedom Food” and “Kvalitet med omtanke (Quality with thoughtfulness)” in Denmark. The Animal Protection Organisation has worked with a similar system in Norway.
That there is disagreement between what consumers say and what they actually do is a well known phenomenon which economists have worked with for many years. The consumers’ wishes are not always reflected in sales statistics. This can be down to several things such as a lack of relevant choices, consumers have to choose between many considerations at the point of purchase, and consumer place the responsibility for animal welfare on others. Attitude surveys, however, indicate a general agreement that a high standard of animal welfare shall be regarded a collective benefit for society and not suitable to be regulated by market forces.
4.2 Elements from the natural sciences’ fundamental knowledge regarding animals
In our Christian humanistic culture it is traditional to operate with a distinct division between humans on the one side and all the animal species on the other side. When Darwin introduced his theory of evolution in the mid 1800s he broke away from the prevailing view of nature. Darwin claimed that there were grade differences and not absolute differences between animal species and between animals and people. This applied to morphological, physical and mental skills. Later research within biology has confirmed that Darwin’s postulates to a large extent were correct.
4.2.1 Genetics
Molecular genetics has revealed that DNA is built in approximately the same way regardless whether it comes from bacteria, fish or people. This makes it possible to transfer genes between very different species and make them work inside their new host. Genetic similarities and differences have made it possible to set up probable family trees for evolution. On the basis of genetic studies one can suppose that the
development distinction between fish and other vertebrates took place 400 million years ago, which fits in quite well with fossil finds.
DNA in chimpanzees and humans has a similarity of 98%, pigs and humans approximately 90%. As a comparison two species which we consider to be very similar, the Indian elephant and the African elephant, 96% of the DNA is similar.
There is nevertheless no doubt that even small differences in DNA can be the source of large differences in external form and function.
When different species have very similar genes, it is not surprising that many of the building bricks in the body, the proteins, are very similar. The pig’s insulin is so similar to the human’s that over many years it has been used for the treatment of diabetes until it was possible to produce human insulin with the help of genetically modified bacteria.
For species which separated at an early stage in the history of evolution, similar qualities may have come from various origins and organisation (convergent
evolution). For example the ability to fly is not only held by birds but also by insects and the bat, which is a mammal. The fact that fish do not have brain bark does not necessarily mean that fish lack all the functions which are taken care of by the brain barken within mammals. The evolution may have created alternative solutions so that different structures can take care of the same tasks.
4.2.2 Neurophysiology and cognitive2 attributes Animals’ feelings
Recent brain research has shown that the feelings, which one previously thought come into existence in the brain barken actually have their headquarters in the
developmentally oldest part of the brain. Feelings such as hunger, fear, pain,
satisfaction, joy and anger are therefore hardly just human qualities but qualities we have in common with animals. The brain barken, which is the part of the brain which has grown enormously in relative size from the first vertebrate animals to primates and the human, plays an important role in interpreting, modifying and subsequently suppressing feelings, but does not create them.
An important factor has been and is whether animals experience pain in the same way as humans, and the answer has been central in determining whether people have moral duties to animals. Pain is like other feelings subjective, and can therefore not be directly measured, neither in animals nor people. Not all species or individuals act in the same way in situations which must be assumed gives significant pain. Whilst a dog will often scream and struggle, a sheep will normally show very few external signs. One cannot conclude from this that dogs feel more pain than sheep. It is more likely that the level of external signs can be seen as evolutionary adjustments. A sheep which makes a lot of noise in a struggle will quickly gain the attention of predators.
The ability to feel pain and discomfort is important to protect the body from damage to the tissue and to hasten a healing process, for example an injured foot should not be
2 Cognitive is a term in psychology describing the processes that form the basis for recognition, thinking and knowledge acquisition, and includes topics like the perception of the senses, awareness, memory, language and ability to reason and solve problems.
stressed. If the anatomical makeup of the nervous system, both receptors, nerve tracks and structures in the brain, the effect of pain relief medicine and not least the animal’s ability to learn to avoid situations which have earlier been associated with pain were compared, it is reasonable to conclude that in any case all higher standing vertebrate animals feel pain. In fish all the criteria have not been investigated. The majority of researchers have today the view that fish probably feel pain, even though a certain amount of disagreement exists. For invertebrates the situation is significantly more uncertain, and there is a great lack of knowledge in the area. There are indications that amongst others octopus feels pain.
Researcher’s opinion earlier was that babies did not feel pain. This was amongst others demonstrated by saying their nervous system was not yet fully developed.
There was therefore carried out advanced surgery on babies without general anaesthesia right up to the 1980s. Today the physiologists’ opinion is that the
immature nervous system perhaps by contrast means that babies are more sensitive to pain.
Consciousness
Consciousness varies on a scale from awareness to reflective self consciousness. In humans the development of reflective self consciousness takes several years.
Consciousness in animals is naturally enough difficult to test in a scientific way, but several tests and observations may indicate that high standing mammals and perhaps some bird species have self consciousness. It is reasonable to suggest that there in any case exists a significant grade difference between the species. Some researchers, such as Donald Griffin, do not exclude that even insects have a form for consciousness. He justifies this by saying that consciousness is an effective way of sorting perceptions of the senses for an animal with a simple nervous system.
A high level of consciousness has been referred to as a prerequisite for an adequate experience of pain. However, this view relies on the suggestion that feelings come from the brain bark and not the developmentally oldest part of the brain. Pain is now considered to be amongst the “simple” feelings which are not dependant upon complicated processes in the great brain.
Instinct and the ability to learn
Earlier it was a common understanding that animals were only steered by
unchangeable action patterns which they where born with which where spontaneously released by given stimuli or influences. This was called instinct. Today, researchers have a different understanding of behaviour and the term instinct is used rarely. It is correct that animals show movement and reaction habits which they are born with and which are species specific. These are rarely static, but they are adapted to the actual situation the animal is in. The majority of animals have a well developed ability to learn from experience and they modify their behaviour under changing circumstances.
The individuals within a species are often genetically capable of learning some tasks or situations particularly fast. This is true particularly for skills which are important for the ability to survive in the environment which the species has adapted too. People and rats easily associate nausea or vomit with food which has just been consumed.
The result is a rejection of the food for short or long periods regardless of whether the cause was something else completely. This association ability is important in order for omnivorous species to learn how to distinguish between safe and dangerous food.
Knowledge, for example concerning where good grazing areas can be found is passed from a mother to her young. It is well known that for example moose use the same migration routes for generations. Sheep do the same. Some animals can learn new skills by observing others. After a titmouse in England learnt to peck a hole in the tin foil on the top of a bottle of milk which had been delivered to the door by the
milkman and take the cream from the non-homogenised milk this behaviour spread quickly to other titmice throughout England. When behaviour and experience is collected and passed on from generation to generation within a population this can be called culture also amongst animals.
Animals’ ability to think
The ability for abstract thinking and reasoning stems from the brain bark. Humans have by far the relatively largest brain bark regardless whether it is calculated by volume or surface area. But animals also have to some extent the ability to reason and to solve tasks. Both primates and certain species of bird are capable of making and using primitive tools. It is claimed that a flock of wolves plan their hunt and amongst other things place rested members of the flock along the expected hunting route.
There is, however, limited research based knowledge in this area and the subject is dominated by anecdotal literature.
Language and communication
No species has a verbal language equivalent to that of the humans. It has been possible to teach chimpanzees and gorillas to use sign language in such a way as to show that they understand the meaning of the words and can share their feelings and wishes. Parrots can learn to understand sentences and use words correctly. Animals such as horses and dogs can easily learn the meaning of various commands in the same way as people can learn the meaning of various sound signals from the animals.
The contact between people and animals will primarily take place as silent
communication. There is no doubt many animal species, particularly flock animals, have a well developed communication system. The bees dance, which informs other bees in the hive about the direction and distance to a flower bed shows that advanced communication is not reserved for vertebrate animals.
Ethology
Ethology, the systematic study of the animals’ behaviour, is a relatively new and multi subject discipline within the natural sciences. The animals’ behaviour can be explained from various viewpoints. A type of behaviour can for example be explained from the evolutionary perspective or functional criteria, but also from mechanisms in the animal which cause the behaviour, such as physiological changes or learning mechanisms. Genetics, cognitive psychology, physiology, ecology, and socio-biology can all be used to understand and explain behaviour. Modern ethnology integrates these academic disciplines into complete behaviour biology.
The humanisation of animals
Knowledge concerning the genetic relationships and the many similarities between humans and animals can lead to us feeling association with animals and treat them with a greater compassion and care. Acceptance of such a similarity is however not a prerequisite for this. Animals can also be respected and admired because they are different from people and have skills which we lack, for example the leopard’s speed,
the dog’s sense of smell, or a birds sense of direction. The most important thing is the will and the ability to respect animals as they are and prioritise their particular
species’ specific needs. If we instead as people uncritically ascribe to animals our own needs and desires, that which is called anthropomorphism (humanisation), we may inflict injustice on animals.
4.3 Animal welfare
4.3.1 Animal Welfare – understanding the term
The Norwegian term for animal welfare has been taken into the Norwegian language from the English term “animal welfare” which concerns how good the animal’s conditions are and how well the animal progresses through life. The term animal welfare is now to a large extent used instead of other overlapping terms such as animal protection and animal care and will be used in this report. Animal protection, which is the oldest and therefore the most established term, covers what is
traditionally regarded as protecting animals from mistreatment, abuse and suffering.
The earliest animal protection legislation was exclusively focused upon this. In 1974, when the current Animal Protection Law was approved, a requirement concerning consideration for the animals’ instincts and natural needs was included in the scope.
Recent regulations focus to an increasing extent upon factors which positively contribute to animals’ wellbeing instead of just aiming to reduce suffering. The term animal care was primarily introduced through agricultural channels in order to increase awareness amongst the individual stakeholder regarding the importance of good treatment of living animals throughout the chain from barn to slaughter.
Whilst animal protection and animal care focus upon people in contact with animals, animal welfare focuses upon the individual animal and its situation. Animal welfare has thus much of the same content as the everyday word well-being. The animal’s welfare is dependant on the coordination of several factors such as the physical environment, care factors and care, as well as qualities in the animal as a species, race, age, sex and earlier experience. There are, however, several definitions and understandings of the content of the term animal welfare.
The Brambell commission
The English Brambell Commission in 1965 presented an extensive investigation of the term animal welfare and summed up the ideal welfare as “the five freedoms” for domestic animals:
• Freedom from hunger, thirst and malnutrition.
• Freedom from abnormal cold and heat.
• Freedom from fear and stress.
• Freedom from injury and sickness.
• Freedom to exercise normal behaviour.
The commission declared that the first two points are to a great extent complied with in modern keeping, and that there is a long way to go before we satisfy the animals behavioural needs.
Objective measurement of animal welfare
In science one has attempted to define the term animal welfare in such a way as to enable the objective measurement of the level of welfare using scientific methods.
The most commonly cited definition was developed by the world’s first professor in animal welfare, the English Donald M. Broom. He states that “The welfare of an individual is its state as regards its attempts to cope with its environment”. Animal welfare is thus described as an individual animal’s status with regard to how it masters the environment in which it lives. The term mastering is central in the understanding of welfare. The starting point is that most animals are adaptable and flexible within certain limits. The environment does not need to be a copy of the animal’s preferred habitat in the wild but it must be adapted in such a way as to give the animal the opportunity to cater for its physiological and behavioural needs, and subsequently allow for physiological and psychological balance. An example which can demonstrate this would be a young horse being released into a pen with a strange adult horse. The young horse will probably through its body language immediately show submissiveness. Should this not be sufficient to quell aggression from the other horse then the young horse may perhaps have to keep a good distance away in order to avoid attack. The design of the enclosure and the care routine’s are of vital importance for the young horse’s opportunity for mastering. Is the space in the enclosure adequate so that the young horse can move away in time and have the opportunity to rest at a safe distance? Is feeding done in such a way that the adult dominant horse controls the feed and the young horse does not dare getting close to the crib and perhaps must be satisfied with bad leftovers? Whether the young horse’s attempts to master the situation succeeds or fails, but also the other consequences of its exertion, gives a picture of the welfare. It can for example happen that the young horse is bitten or kicked, is malnourished or lives in constant fear, but also that the adult horse accepts the young horse and that they develop strong social ties.
The existence of injury and sickness, mortality, growth, reproductive success, behaviour, together with physiological parameters for example stress hormones, are often used as welfare indicators. An animal which uses a lot of resources to master its environment has a worse standard of welfare than one which uses few, even if both have been successful in their attempts.
Ethics and animal welfare
Broom’s definition makes it possible in principle to measure animal welfare in a scientific way. Animal welfare is a quantity which can vary on a scale from very good to very bad. When researchers have described the level of animal welfare with
objective methods, Broom is of the view that it is society’s task to decide where on the scale the distinction shall be set between acceptably good and unacceptably bad animal welfare. This, according to Broom, is a moral/ethical dilemma.
Other researchers are of the view that the term welfare in itself concerns more than biology and that the term is firmly attached to an underlying perception of value. It is their view therefore that ethical considerations and dilemmas must be considered from the start. The natural sciences do not state for example how the different welfare indicators should be weighted. It is not rare that two measurements for welfare point in different directions. How much should for example the presence of behavioural stereotypes (obsessive movements) count in relation to good physical health? Is it most important that the animal gets to live a normal life in relation to the species’
natural biology or is it better that the animal is held in a controlled environment so
